Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): community discussion 073

joh*** contends that leadership factions use traffic diversion and narrative management to keep followers from claiming victim status under the belief they can recover funds through Section 853(n).

joh*** argues that circulating defense counsel's email constitutes narrative manipulation tied to legal warfare mentioned in 789, asserting that defense lawyers cannot use evidence supplied by victims.

joh*** describes how unrepresented claimants submitting Section 853(n) petitions mistakenly relied on remission forms provided by organizers while remaining legally classified as victims.

ntp*** contends that Section 853 governs financial claims while the CVRA addresses procedural questions, allowing both to move forward concurrently.

roy*** recalls that the filing window for Section 853(n) petitions closed on Oct 22 of the prior year, asserting that no further submissions can be accepted.

him*** disputes the clarity of the current schedule, questioning when Section 853(n) proceedings officially open or conclude.

ntp*** questions the relationship between attorneys and the alliance, expressing concern that submitting materials to lawyers effectively delivers them to the alliance.

ntp*** contends that directing victims to contact defense attorneys could lead to allegations of collusion between opposing parties, thereby tainting victims and nullifying their motions.

ntp*** observes that the cited retained counsel was not explicitly identified by name.

joh*** argues that defense counsel in 789 sought to verify the authenticity of victim qualifications rather than asserting that no victims exist.

joh*** recounts facing hostility from various factions for pursuing Section 853(n) third-party claims and CVRA appeals to the Second Circuit, alleging coordinated efforts to contain the case in the Southern District.

him*** contends that the core issue lies in procedural violations committed by the prosecution.

joh*** asks whether the discussion concerns the potential withdrawal of claims by the 134 purported victims.

beg*** contends that if key figures among the 134 claimants recant, defense counsel can dismantle remaining claims individually based on background disclosures in 789.

beg*** recounts that prior outreach to former defense counsel went unheeded and argues that the 134 claimants should cooperate with current counsel before sentencing to establish the facts.

chu*** contends that claimants must act with full independence, warning that alliance-coordinated letters to lawyers and court filings under Section 853(n) could obstruct justice and taint favorable evidence.

roy*** asks whether claimants should email attorney Gair to revoke representation and whether submitting Section 853(n) petitions at this stage remains effective.

hel*** contends that submitting filings remains useful.

hel*** asks if fellow participants can assist in preparing petition materials for pro se claimants.

roy*** explains that members should review previous group discussions and draft filings individually rather than participating in collective form submissions organized by the alliance.

roy*** emphasizes that each participant acts independently and represents only themselves.

beg*** recalls earlier discussions anticipating that the Second Circuit would deny the mandamus petitions and asks what steps follow.

kir*** contends that petitioners can subsequently seek review before the Supreme Court.

kir*** argues that Judge Torres's team appears completely disoriented by ongoing developments.

chu*** shares an external video link discussing legal arguments and case developments.

chu*** shares a social media post regarding legal updates and organizational strategy.

him*** suggests checking automated data tracking bots to clarify disputes.

him*** questions how the court can determine which pro se petitioners were incited by co-conspirators and which were not.

him*** contends that some individuals likely filed petitions based on their own independent reasoning.

him*** argues that if a pro se filing targets the alliance farms directly, it clearly operates independently of the alliance.

him*** contends that Section 853(n) claim proceedings may be reopened in the future.

him*** observes that while Section 853(n) submissions are currently closed, parties could intervene if the court reopens the process later.

him*** asserts that invoking rights under the CVRA remains a viable procedural route.

joh*** contends that investors seeking recovery should pursue alliance farms for alleged misappropriation and file third-party Section 853(n) claims rather than suing criminal defendants directly.

kir*** argues that those claimants should pursue government remission instead.

kir*** describes being uncertain about the specific procedures involved.